72 A.3d 523
Me.2013Background
- Victim disappeared Aug 7–8, 2007; her body was found Sept 2, 2007, buried on property owned by defendant Twardus’s father in Stewartstown, NH. Cause of death: strangulation. Items from victim’s apartment (comforter, purse contents, photos) and a victim hair were found in Twardus’s car/trunk and in the grave; Twardus’s fingerprints on a photo baggie. A crushed prescription (Requip) was also in the grave.
- Evidence placed Twardus near the victim’s apartment Aug 6 and at an ATM in Rochester on Aug 8; security footage and witness IDs tended to place him near the burial route; he gave inconsistent statements to police about his movements.
- At trial the State argued Twardus killed the victim in Maine, transported the body in his car, buried it on his father’s land, and stopped at a convenience store; defense blamed alternative suspects (Durfee, Degreenia) and attacked credibility of State witnesses. Jury convicted Twardus of murder; he was sentenced to 38 years.
- Post-trial Twardus moved for a new trial twice. First motion alleged the State failed to disclose impeachment/exculpatory statements by John Durfee (via Charity Camire) and other post-trial evidence about the Durfees. Second motion added jailhouse informant statements (Villella) implicating Durfee and a subsequent domestic-violence conviction of Degreenia.
- The trial court found a Brady nondisclosure as to Camire’s information but concluded the undisclosed evidence was not material (would not undermine confidence in verdict); other post-trial evidence was treated under Rule 33 and rejected as insufficient to require a new trial. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Twardus) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady nondisclosure of Durfee-related tip (Charity Camire) | Failure to disclose impeaching/exculpatory statement that Durfee knew a burial site undermines verdict | Any nondisclosure was inadvertent but the evidence is not material given the strong evidence against Twardus | Court: Brady nondisclosure occurred but evidence not material; no reasonable probability of different result; conviction stands |
| Newly discovered evidence from other Durfee witnesses (Plourde, Hersom, Durfees) | Post-trial statements would show Durfee’s knowledge/culpability and impeach Durfee/Nancy Durfee credibility | Evidence is cumulative, vague, or fantastical and would not probably change the verdict | Court: Rule 33 standard not met; new evidence would not likely produce different verdict |
| Delay in disclosure of jailhouse informant Villella’s statements about Durfee | Late disclosure deprived defense of Brady protections and fair trial | Statements arose after trial or were not producible at trial; hearsay issues; not admissible without Villella testifying | Court: Brady doesn't apply to post-trial evidence; under Rule 33 evidence inadmissible double-hearsay and Villella didn’t testify—no new-trial entitlement |
| Degreenia’s post-trial domestic violence conviction | Subsequent conviction shows propensity for choking and would materially affect jury assessment of alternative suspect | The conviction was known to defense; at best impeachment under Rule 609 and circumstances underlying conviction not admissible; Degreenia was already impeached | Court: Not newly-discovered Brady material; admissible only for impeachment and unlikely to change outcome; Rule 33 relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady materiality standard and elements of disclosure obligation)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (collective materiality and "undermine confidence" formulation)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (definition of "reasonable probability" to show materiality)
- Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (Brady as a trial right; limits post-conviction application)
- State v. Cookson, 837 A.2d 101 (Me. 2003) (Rule 33 newly discovered evidence standard)
- State v. Dechaine, 630 A.2d 234 (Me. 1993) (trial court’s role in weighing new evidence credibility)
- State v. Silva, 56 A.3d 1230 (Me. 2012) (materiality definition under Brady)
- State v. Melanson, 566 A.2d 83 (Me. 1989) (heightened showing when new evidence is impeachment)